ruby-core

So, is it correct to assume that for language constructs that create built-in types like Range, Array, Hash etc that user-defined initialize methods are never called?

[#11549] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2007/06/28

> -----Original Message-----

[#11554] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — murphy <murphy@...> 2007/06/28

> ... for language constructs that create

[#11560] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/06/29

Hi,

[#11550] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/06/28

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:24:48 +0900, "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:

[#11553] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — "Marcel Molina Jr." <marcel@...> 2007/06/28

On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 06:54:49AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:

[#11548] NilClass, TrueClass, FalseClass special cased for singleton classes? — "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@...>

If you do:

3 messages 2007/06/28

[#11557] Re: NilClass, TrueClass, FalseClass special cased for singleton classes? — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/06/29

Hi,

[#11559] Re: NilClass, TrueClass, FalseClass special cased for singleton classes? — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...> 2007/06/29

John Lam (CLR) wrote:

[#11555] Name of Classes — =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Wolfgang_N=E1dasi-Donner?= <wonado@...>

Moin, moin!

2 messages 2007/06/28

[#11558] Re: Name of Classes — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/06/29

Moin,

[#11556] delete_if with destructive methods in block — Florian Gross <florgro@...>

Hi,

3 messages 2007/06/29

[#11561] Re: [BUG] delete_if with destructive methods in block — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/06/29

Hi,

[#11567] Re: delete_if with destructive methods in block — Florian Gross <florgro@...> 2007/06/30

That fixes it for me. I got no regressions from Rubinius' hash spec

[#11562] Can clear frozen array using initialize() — Florian Gross <florgro@...>

Hi,

2 messages 2007/06/29

[#11563] Re: [BUG] Can clear frozen array using initialize() — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/06/30

Hi,

Re: [PATCH] Another small bug fix for Ruby 1.9 and a request for clarification

From: "Florian Frank" <flori@...>

Date: 2007-06-05 23:29:35 UTC

List: ruby-core #11417

Hello,

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
>> The second makes it
>> possible to build 1.9. with an installed Ruby 1.8. for bootstrapping.
>>     
>
> For cross-compiling?
That's an interesting question. I had a problem with the new syntax in 
the extmk.rb file, but now I see, that it's supposed to be called from 
miniruby. It's likely, that I had some older 1.8 miniruby laying around. 
I guess, I just got confused. The change might be useful for 
cross-compiling as well.

I usually have a hard time compiling 1.9 compared to 1.8. But I guess 
this is to be expected, because development is so much faster now than 
it used to be before the yarv merge.

I have a attached patch for rdoc-dot. The dot program of the graphviz 
package has changed it's version string output in some of the newer 2.x 
versions. Without the patch rdoc cannot draw the nice module/class 
diagrams, because it cannot figure out the required version. It might be 
useful to apply this patch to Ruby 1.8 as well (if the problem wasn't
already corrected there).

Maybe I should write a different email for this, but anyway. NARUSE Yui sent me an email about a failing JSON test. It seems the semantic for these cases have changed from Ruby 1.8.5 to Ruby 1.9:

RUBY_VERSION # => "1.8.5"
for (foo, bar) in [[1,2], [3,4]]
  [foo, bar] # => [1, 2], [3, 4]
end

for foo, bar in [[1,2], [3,4]]
  [foo, bar] # => [1, 2], [3, 4]
end

RUBY_VERSION # => "1.9.0"
for (foo, bar) in [[1,2], [3,4]]
  [foo, bar] # => [1, nil], [3, nil]
end

for foo, bar in [[1,2], [3,4]]
  [foo, bar] # => [1, 2], [3, 4]
end

I fixed my tests by always using the second form, but this could be a 
Ruby bug. Or is the semantic change intended?

-- 
Florian Frank

Attachments (1)

rdoc-dot.patch (708 Bytes, text/x-diff)

Index: lib/rdoc/options.rb
===================================================================
--- lib/rdoc/options.rb	(revision 12443)
+++ lib/rdoc/options.rb	(working copy)
@@ -550,12 +550,12 @@
     ver = nil
     IO.popen("dot -V 2>&1") do |io|
       ver = io.read
-      if ver =~ /dot\s+version(?:\s+gviz)?\s+(\d+)\.(\d+)/
+      if ver =~ /dot.*?version(?:\s+gviz)?\s+(\d+)\.(\d+)/
         ok = ($1.to_i > 1) || ($1.to_i == 1 && $2.to_i >= 8)
       end
     end
     unless ok
-      if ver =~ /^dot version/
+      if ver =~ /^dot.*?version/
         $stderr.puts "Warning: You may need dot V1.8.6 or later to use\n",
           "the --diagram option correctly. You have:\n\n   ",
           ver,

Thread

Prev Next

In This Thread

Prev Next